The US Green Party’s national convention wrapped up in Houston, Texas this weekend, but you wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media.

Highlights included a speech from Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, the introduction of the only African-American in the race, and Jill Stein’s official nomination.

Here now are the five best moments from the undercovered convention.

 

1.) Jill Stein accepts the Green Party nomination

Jill Stein, who would make history as America’s first female, Jewish and medical doctor president, accepted her party’s nomination Saturday, along with her running mate, African-American activist Ajamu Baraka.

Like Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech two weeks before, the crowd shouted “Jill not Hill,” although this time they weren’t told to “shut up.”

Stein highlighted core Green Party issues such as climate change, demilitarization, opposing the TPP, ending mass incarceration and the war on drugs, and reparations for slavery and indigenous people.

She also promoted marriage equality, which the Green Party supported back when Democrats such as Clinton were backing the anti-LGBTI Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“We have been ahead of the curve for decades, and all of a sudden that curve is catching up to us - big time,” Stein said to applause.

 

2) Bernie backers welcome

Much of the three-day convention centered around the Green Party’s efforts to court disgruntled supporters of Bernie Sanders after he endorsed Hillary Clinton.

“I want to recognize the people coming out of the Bernie Sanders campaign who launched a political movement and refused to let that movement die in the Democratic Party,” Stein said. “You have completely changed the political dynamics going forward, it will never be the same and there will be no stopping you, there will be no stopping us until we have achieved that change that we have all put on the platform together.”

The convention saw its largest attendance ever, which a spokesperson credited to last minute sign-ups from the Sanders camp.

   

3) Introducing... Ajamu Baraka

 

Green Party vice presidential nominee Ajamu Baraka, a human rights activist, writer and organizer, delivered an impassioned speech on the consequences of austerity, the rising homelessness among black women, the millions of people without healthcare, and the lack of opportunities for those who wish to work.

“There are millions of people who are prepared to do something different, who are prepared to go another way. And we are going to be there to provide that opportunity for a new day and another way,” Baraka said.

African-American voters were one of Hillary Clinton's strongest base during the primary, despite footage of her referring to young black men as “Super Predators.”

Now, even though her running mate Tim Kaine executed five black men while governor of Virginia, it remains to be seen whether Ajamu can attract activists from the #BlackLivesMatter movement over to the green side.

 

4) Julian Assange speaks

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange addressed the convention on Saturday from inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He discussed Stein’s chances of reaching the 15 percent threshold set by the corporately-funded Commission on Presidential Debates. Four years ago, she was arrested and detained in a 'blacksite' after trying to debate Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney, as she explained in an interview with RT outside the Democratic convention.

“I’m serious. You never know. Who knows what happens in a campaign, anything is possible. [The Clinton and Trump campaigns] continue to generate oversight and resistance, which will not only create a fertile field for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to grow their support but will create a fairly fertile field to understand and hold government accountable,” Assange said.

The whistleblower repeated his views on the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument for voting for Clinton or Trump, comparing the choice to choosing between cholera or gonorrhea.

Wikileaks recently released emails from the Democratic National Committee which revealed how the party colluded to get Hillary Clinton nominated over Bernie Sanders.

5) Cornel West

Dr Cornel West, who previously supported Sanders, reinforced his support for Stein during his convention speech.

"We understand the difference between a neo-fascist catastrophe and a neo-liberal disaster," he said.

Many hoped Stein would pick him as her VP nominee, but as he exclusively told RT during the Democratic convention last month, running for office is “not his calling.”

 

read more: https://www.rt.com/usa/355129-green-party-convention-highlights/

 

 

Gus: I suppose that the Olympics take precedence over the future of this planet in the MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda)...

GLOBAL POWER PROJECT: THE GROUP OF THIRTY, ARCHITECTS OF AUSTERITY

 

WED, 12/11/2013 - BY ANDREW GAVIN MARSHALL

 

The Group of Thirty, a preeminent think tank that brings together dozens of the world’s most influential policy makers, central bankers, financiers and academics, has been the focus of two recent reports for Occupy.com’s Global Power Project. In studying this group, I compiled CVs of the G30's current and senior members: a total of 34 individuals. The first report looked at the origins of the G30, while the second examined some of the current projects and reports emanating from the group. In this installment, I take a look at some specific members of the G30 and their roles in justifying and implementing austerity measures.

Central Bankers, Markets and Austerity

For the current members of the Group of Thirty who are sitting or recently-sitting central bankers, their roles in the financial and economic turmoil of recent years is well-known and, most especially, their role in bailing out banks, providing long-term subsidies and support mechanisms for financial markets, and forcing governments to implement austerity and "structural reform" policies, notably in the European Union. With both the former European Central Bank (ECB) President Jean-Claude Trichet and current ECB President Mario Draghi serving as members of the G30, austerity measures have become a clearly favored policy of the G30.

In a January 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jean-Claude Trichet explained that he had been “involved personally in numerous financial crises since the beginning of the 1980s,” in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Soviet Union, having been previously the president of the Paris Club – an "informal" grouping that handles debt crisis and restructuring issues on behalf the world’s major creditor nations. In this capacity, Trichet “had to deal with around 55 countries that were in bankruptcy.”

In July of 2010, Trichet wrote in the Financial Times that “now is the time to restore fiscal sustainability,” noting that “consolidation is a must,” which is a different way of saying austerity. In each of E.U. government bailouts – of which the ECB acted as one of the three central institutions responsible for negotiating and providing the deal, alongside the European Commission and the IMF, forming the so-called Troika – austerity measures were always a required ingredient, which subsequently plunged those countries into even deeper economic, social and political crises (Spain and Greece come to mind).

The same was true under the subsequent ECB president and G30 member, Draghi, who has continued to demand austerity measures, structural reforms (notably in dismantling the protections for labor), and extended support to the banking system, even to a greater degree than his predecessor. In a February 2012 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Draghi stated that “the European social model has already gone,” noting that countries of the Eurozone would have “to make labour markets more flexible.” He meant, of course, that they must have worker protections and benefits dismantled to make them more "flexible" to the demands of corporate and financial interests who can more easily and cheaply exploit that labor.

In a 2012 interview with Der Spiegel, Draghi noted that European governments will have to “transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level” and recommended that the European Commission be given the supranational authority to have a direct say in the budgets of E.U. nations, adding that “a lot of governments have yet to realize that they lost their national sovereignty a long time ago.” He further explained, incredibly, that since those governments let their debts pile up they must now rely on “the goodwill of the financial markets."

Another notable member of the Group of Thirty who has been a powerful figure among the world’s oligarchs of austerity is Jaime Caruana, the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which serves as the bank for the central banks of the world. Caruana was previously Governor of the Bank of Spain, from 2000 to 2006, during which time Spain experienced its massive housing bubble that led directly to the country's debt crisis amid the global recession. In 2006, a team of inspectors within the Bank of Spain sent a letter to the Spanish government criticizing then-Governor Caruana for his “passive attitude” toward the massive bubble he was helping to facilitate.

As head of the BIS, Caruana delivered a speech in June of 2011 to the assembled central bankers at an annual general meeting in Basel, Switzerland, in which he gave his full endorsement of the austerity agenda across Europe, noting that “the need for fiscal consolidation [austerity] is even more urgent” than during the previous year. He added, “There is no easy way out, no shortcut, no painless solution – that is, no alternative to the rigorous implementation of comprehensive country packages including strict fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.”

At the 2013 annual general meeting of the BIS, Caruana again warned that attempts by governments “at fiscal consolidation need to be more ambitious,” and warned that if financial markets view a government’s debt as unsustainable, “bond investors can and do punish governments hard and fast.” If governments continue to delay austerity, he said, the markets will have to use "market discipline" to force governments to act, “and then the pain will be large indeed.” In further recommending "structural reforms" to labor and service markets, Caruana noted that “the reforms are critical to attaining and preserving confidence,” by which, of course, he meant the confidence of markets.

The ‘Academic’ of Austerity: Kenneth Rogoff

Kenneth Rogoff is an influential academic economist and a member of the Group of Thirty. Rogoff currently hold a position as professor at Harvard University and as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He sits on the Economic Advisory Panel to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and previously Rogoff spent time as the chief economist of the IMF as well serving as an adviser to the executive board of the Central Bank of Sweden. Rogoff is these days most famous – or infamous – for co-authoring (with Carmen Reinhart) a study published in 2010 that made the case for austerity measures to become the favored policy of nations around the world.

The study, entitled, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” appeared in the American Economic Review in 2010 to great acclaim within high-level circles. One of the main conclusions of the paper held that when a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio hits 90%, “they reach a tipping point after which they’ll start experiencing serious growth slowdowns.” The paper was cited by the U.S. Congress as well as by Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and one of Europe’s stalwart defenders of austerity, who has demanded themeasures be instituted on multiple countries in the E.U. in return for bailout funds.

A Google Scholar search for the terms “Growth in a Time of Debt” and “Rogoff” turned up approximately 828 results. In 2013, Forbesreferred to the paper as “perhaps the most quoted but least read economic publication of recent years.” The paper was also cited in dozens of media outlets around the world, multiple times, especially by influential players in the financial press.

In 2012, Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, said Rogoff was “much in demand to advise world leaders on how to counter the financial crisis,” and noted that while the economist had been attending the World Economic Forum meetings for a decade, he had become “more in demand than ever” after having “written the definitive history of financial crises over the centuries” alongside Carmen Reinhart. Rogoff was consulted by Barack Obama, “and is known to have spent many hours with George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor,” wrote Rachman, noting that Rogoff advised government’s “to get serious about cutting their deficits, [which] strongly influenced the British government’s decision to make controlling spending its priority.”

The praise became all the more noteworthy in April of 2013 when researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, published a paper accusing Rogoff and Reinhart of “sloppy statistical analysis” while documenting several key mistakes that undermined the conclusions of the original 2010 paper. The report from Amherst exploded across global media, immediately forcing Rogoff and Reinhart on the defensive. The New Yorker noted that “the attack from Amherst has done enormous damage to Reinhart and Rogoff’s credibility, and to the intellectual underpinnings of the austerity policies with which they are associated.”

As New York Times columnist and fellow G30 member Paul Krugman noted, the original 2010 paper by Reinhart and Rogoff “may have had more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics.” After the Amherst paper, he added, “The revelation that the supposed 90 percent threshold was an artifact of programming mistakes, data omissions, and peculiar statistical techniques suddenly made a remarkable number of prominent people look foolish.” Krugman, who had firmly opposed austerity policies long before Rogoff’s paper, suggested that “the case for austerity was and is one that many powerful people want to believe, leading them to seize on anything that looks like a justification.”

Indeed, many of those “powerful people” happen to be members of the Group of Thirty who are, with the notable exception of Krugman, largely in favor of austerity measures. Krugman himself tends to represent the limits of acceptable dissent within the G30, criticizing policies and policy makers while accepting the fundamental concepts of the global financial and economic system. He commented that he had been a member of the G30 since 1988 and referred to it as a “talk shop” where he gets “a chance to hear what people like Trichet and Draghi have to say in an informal setting," adding, “while I’ve heard some smart things from people with a role in real-world decisions, I’ve also heard a lot of very foolish things said by alleged wise men.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a 26-year old researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada. He is Project Manager of The People’s Book Project, chair of the Geopolitics Division of The Hampton Institute, research director for Occupy.com’s Global Power Project and World of Resistance (WOR) Report, and hosts a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost.

 

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/global-power-project-group-thirty-architec...

 

 

Gus:

Here we can see how the Americans have been setting up the entire sting. They have of course institutionalised the GFC, the Global Financial Crisis, which was designed to:

— reset the US financial markets to favour the rich, by making the banks, industry and other institutions go into the "red" forcing the government to print cash to "bail" out the banking system, from which trough the rich would gorge themselves....

— sink Europe financial institutions to which subprime faulty goods had been supplied with promises of AAA ratings.

— sink the European Union government having to deal with defaulting countries such as Greece, possibly Portugal and Spain, Ireland and Iceland...

— provide escape routes for cash accumulated by rich people

— destroy Russia's economy under the pretence of "privatisation". Rob Russia of its assets...

— supervise the world banking system, including fostering aggressive hedge funds and private vulture organisation in Africa.

— destroy the social equity as much as possible, while letting ordinary people feel hopeless in the face of mounting personal debt.

— encourage "individualism" under this financial debt system and police state controls, in which there is very little possibility for people to assemble and protest at the inequality of the system.

— interfering with sovereignty in countries such as Brazil (Rousseff) and Venezuela (Chavez who was killed most likely).

 

Note the graph of the pig at top clearly show the sting. The US is pulling away from the UK and Europe. Now with Brexit, we shall see what happens to Britain under the preferential financial guidance of the US...

 

See also: 

http://www.occupy.com/article/global-power-project-group-thirty-and-good-discussion-theyre-still-having#sthash.LLxHtDZ7.dpbs

 

The first part of this article here is about Lawrence Summers and his economic friends, of which Cornel West was not (see West's biog at the end)...

 

 

....

In 2001, when George W. Bush became President, Summers left the Treasury Department and returned to Harvard as its 27th president, serving from July 2001 until June 2006. He is considered Harvard's first Jewish president, though his predecessor Neil Rudenstine had Jewish ancestry, and received praise from Harvard's Jewish community for his support.[28]

A number of Summers's decisions at Harvard attracted public controversy.

Cornel West affair[edit]

In an October 2001 meeting, Summers criticized African American Studies department head Cornel West for allegedly missing three weeks of classes to work on the Bill Bradley presidential campaign, and complained that West was contributing to grade inflation. Summers also claimed that West's "rap" album was an "embarrassment" to the university. West pushed back strongly against the accusations.[29] "The hip-hop scared him. It's a stereotypical reaction," he said later. West, who later called Summers both "uninformed" and "an unprincipled power player" in describing this encounter in his book Democracy Matters (2004), subsequently returned to Princeton University, where he had taught prior to Harvard University.

Differences between the sexes[edit]See also: Women in science

In January 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers sparked controversy with his discussion of why women may have been underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions".

Summers had prefaced his talk, saying he was adopting an "entirely positive, rather than normative approach" and that his remarks were intended to be an "attempt at provocation."[30]

Summers then began by identifying three hypotheses for the higher proportion of men in high-end science and engineering positions:

1. The high-powered job hypothesis
2. Different availability of aptitude at the high end
3. Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search[30]

The second hypothesis, the generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities,[31][32][33] leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions, caused the most controversy. In his discussion of this hypothesis, Summers said that "even small differences in the standard deviation [between genders] will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out [from the mean]".[30]Summers referenced research that implied differences between the standard deviations of males and females in the top 5% of twelfth graders under various tests. He then went on to argue that, if this research were to be accepted, then "whatever the set of attributes... that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley... are probably different in their standard deviations as well".[30]

Summers then concluded his discussion of the three hypotheses by saying:

So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them.[30]

Summers then went on to discuss approaches to remedying the shortage of women in high-end science and engineering positions.

This lunch-time talk drew accusations of sexism and careless scholarship, and an intense negative response followed, both nationally and at Harvard.[34] Summers apologized repeatedly.[35] Nevertheless, the controversy is speculated to have contributed to his resigning his position as president of Harvard University the following year, as well as costing Summers the job of Treasury Secretary in Obama's administration.[36]

Summers's protégée Sheryl Sandberg has defended him saying that "Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career" at the World Bank and Treasury. Sandberg described of the lunch talk "What few seem to note is that it is remarkable that he was giving the speech in the first place – that he cared enough about women's careers and their trajectory in the fields of math and science to proactively analyze the issues and talk about what was going wrong".[37]

Summers's opposition and support at Harvard[edit]

On March 15, 2005, members of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which instructs graduate students in Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and undergraduates in Harvard College, passed 218–185 a motion of "lack of confidence" in the leadership of Summers, with 18 abstentions. A second motion that offered a milder censure of the president passed 253 to 137, also with 18 abstentions.

The members of the Harvard Corporation, the University's highest governing body, are in charge of the selection of the president and issued statements strongly supporting Summers.

FAS faculty were not unanimous in their comments on Summers. Influential psychologist Steven Pinker defended the legitimacy of Summers's January lecture. When asked if Summers's talk was "within the pale of legitimate academic discourse," Pinker responded "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa. There is certainly enough evidence for the hypothesis to be taken seriously."[38]

Summers had stronger support among Harvard College students than among the college faculty [Gus note: Most students, especially in the field of economics and politics, going to Harvard are from rich highly conservative families]. One poll by the Harvard Crimson indicated that students opposed his resignation by a three-to-one margin, with 57% of responding students opposing his resignation and 19% supporting it.[39]

In July 2005, a board member of Harvard Corporation, Conrad K. Harper, resigned saying he was angered both by the university president's comments about women and by Summers being given a salary increase. The resignation letter to the president said, "I could not and cannot support a raise in your salary, ... I believe that Harvard's best interests require your resignation."[40][41]

Support of economist Andrei Shleifer[edit]

Harvard and Andrei Shleifer, a close friend and protégé of Summers, controversially paid $28.5 million to settle a lawsuit by the U.S. government over the conflict of interest Shleifer had while advising Russia's privatisation program. The US government had sued Shleifer under the False Claims Act, as he bought Russian stocks while designing the country's privatisation. In 2004, a federal judge ruled that while Harvard had violated the contract, Shleifer and his associate alone were liable for treble damages.

In June 2005, Harvard and Shleifer announced that they had reached a tentative settlement with the US government. In August, Harvard, Shleifer and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages.

Because Harvard paid almost all of the damages and allowed Shleifer to retain his faculty position, the settlement provoked allegations of favoritism on Summers. His continued support for Shleifer strengthened Summers's unpopularity with other professors, as reported in the Harvard Crimson:

"'I've been a member of this Faculty for over 45 years, and I am no longer easily shocked,' is how Frederick H. Abernathy, the McKay professor of mechanical engineering, began his biting comments about the Shleifer case at Tuesday's fiery Faculty meeting. But, Abernathy continued, 'I was deeply shocked and disappointed by the actions of this University' in the Shleifer affair."[42]

In an 18,000-word article "How Harvard lost Russia" in Institutional Investor by David McClintick (January 2006), the magazine detailed Shleifer's alleged efforts to use his inside knowledge of and sway over the Russian economy in order to make lucrative personal investments, all while leading a Harvard group, advising the Russian government, that was under contract with the U.S. The article suggests that Summers shielded his fellow economist from disciplinary action by the University, although it noted that Summers had forewarned Shleifer and his wife Nancy Zimmerman about the conflict-of-interest regulations back in 1996.[42] Summers's friendship with Shleifer was well known by the Corporation when it selected him to succeed Rudenstine and Summers recused himself from all proceedings with Shleifer, whose case was actually handled by an independent committee led by former Harvard President Derek Bok.

Resignation as Harvard President[edit]

On February 21, 2006, Summers announced his intention to step down at the end of the school year effective June 30, 2006. Harvard agreed to provide Summers on his resignation with a one-year paid sabbatical leave, subsidized a $1 million outstanding loan from the university for his personal residence, and provided other payments.[43] Former University President Derek Bok acted as Interim President while the University conducted a search for a replacement which ended with the naming of Drew Gilpin Faust on February 11, 2007.

read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

 

 

Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an American philosopher, academic, social activist, author, public intellectual, and prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. The son of a Baptist minister, West received his undergraduate education from Harvard University, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1973, and received a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1980, becoming the first African American to graduate from Princeton with a Ph.D. in philosophy. He taught at Harvard in 2001 before leaving the school after a highly publicized dispute with then-president Lawrence Summers. He was Professor of African American Studies at Princeton before leaving the school in 2011 to become Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has also spent time teaching at the University of Paris.

The bulk of West's work focuses on the role of race, gender, and class in American society and the means by which people act and react to their "radical conditionedness." West draws intellectual contributions from multiple traditions, including Christianity, the black church, Marxism, neopragmatism, and transcendentalism. Among his most influential books are Race Matters (1994) and Democracy Matters (2004).

West is a frequent media commentator on political and social issues. He often appears on networks such as CNN, C-SPAN,MSNBC, Fox News and PBS and programs such as Real Time With Bill Maher, The Colbert Report, and The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson.[10] From 2010 through 2013, he co-hosted a radio program with Tavis Smiley, called Smiley and West.[11][12] He has also been featured in several documentaries, and made appearances in Hollywood films The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, also providing commentary for the films. He has also made several spoken word andhip hop albums, and has been named MTV's Artist of the Week for his work.[13] He has been portrayed on Saturday Night Live by Kenan Thompson.[14]

read all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

 

We also know how Putin got rid of the oligarchs to the horror of the Americans — hence the present duplicitous "preparation for war" with NATO... What you cannot steal through financial crookery, you take by force... And we also know how Hillary (la femme fatale representative of fake "feminism") has been promoted by the "establishment" by cheating and memory loss in the MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda) as she lied, lies and will lie...

In addition to the usual (and deserved) remembrances of the September 11 attacks, this week also marks the grim anniversary of a very different but equally significant collapse. Ten years ago on September 15, the financial meltdown began that would usher in the recession of 2008.  

It was the single worst financial crisis in the adult lifetime of almost everyone who was alive at the time. Yet you’d never know it from the way our ruling class has behaved ever since. When they weren’t using the Great Recession for crude racial and class warfare demagoguery, they were effectively denying that it was really that bad. (Remember Democrats’ weak retort to Donald Trump that “America is already great”? Or Republicans tossing off “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem” at the height of unemployment and low aggregate demand?)

Trenchant New Republic columnist Jeet Heer recently noted in a Twitter essay that centered on the funeral of John McCain, “We’ve had decades of elite failure, elite impunity, elite coddling of racism…and also elite tolerance of corruption.” He finished by noting that “The failure of the elite to come to terms with its own responsibility vitiates everything [else].” He might as well have been writing an editorial on the meltdown and its aftermath. 

In 1975, the pioneering underground playwright Robert Patrick produced his signature Boomer generation requiem, “Kennedy’s Children.” To appropriate that title, every Gen. Xer and Millennial alive today is a “child” of what happened on and immediately after Black Monday. Those of us in our late 20s and 30s were eagerly about to enter the start of what our yuppie parents called our “peak earning years,” after having worked crappy starter jobs for little or no pay. (“We pay you with the credit.”) High school- and college-aged Millennials were looking forward to the good jobs their overpriced and debt-burdened degrees were supposed to guarantee them after those first couple years of internships.  

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-grim-anniversary-for-...

 

Read from top...